education

Should you pursue a doctorate in MFT?

by

Have you considered pursuing a doctorate in marriage and family therapy? There are at least three good reasons why you should.

Like many programs, where I teach (Alliant) we offer both masters and doctoral degrees in marriage and family therapy. Many of our masters students spend significant time in their second year weighing out this question:

Will pursuing a doctoral degree in MFT be worth the time, energy, and money it takes to get all the way through it?

Obviously, it is a decision that needs to be made with careful consideration of individual circumstances. Not everyone will benefit the same way from getting a doctorate in MFT. And it is highly unlikely to be a good investment if you start a doctorate and do not finish it. But depending on what you want to do with your career, completing a doctoral program could be the best investment you ever make. Here are three reasons why.

  • You can do more with a doctoral degree than a masters. With a doctorate, you may be more likely to secure a university teaching position, either full-time or as an adjunct faculty. In clinic settings, MFTs with doctoral degrees may be more likely to be elevated to supervisory or program-director roles. For tasks that an MFT can do only with additional training, such as psychological testing (laws differ on this from state to state), doctoral programs may provide that training. Finally, depending on the specifics of your state and the type of doctorate you pursue (i.e., Psychology with an emphasis in family therapy versus simply MFT), you may be able to license as a Psychologist, which can offer a broader scope of practice.
     
  • You are likely to make significantly more money with a doctorate than with a masters degree. The gap in MFT salaries between those with masters degrees and those with doctorates in the field is growing significantly, at least in California. I’ve referenced this previously, but it is worth repeating:

    The incomes of MFTs at the masters level have been effectively flat since 2002, rising only from $47,851 to $50,689. This increase is less than what would be expected from inflation alone. Doctoral-level MFTs, however, have seen their incomes grow significantly – including in the current economic downturn. I’ve turned CAMFT’s data since 2004 into a graphic to show the difference:

    Since 2004, while masters-level MFTs have seen little to no increase in income from the profession, those with doctoral degrees have seen their annual incomes rise by almost $10,000, from $62,885 in 2004 to $72,165 in 2010. [See my cautionary notes about this data here.]

    This may be because MFTs with doctorates are performing different tasks and roles, as noted above, or it may be that MFTs with doctoral degrees are getting paid more even when in the same roles as colleagues with masters degrees. Here are two reasons why the latter is at least a possibility: (1) If you license as a psychologist (see above), insurers may reimburse you at a higher rate; (2) In private practice settings, regardless of your licensure, private-pay clients may be willing to pay you more because they see “PhD” or “PsyD” or “DMFT” after your name.
     

  • Better clinical understanding. When I began my doctoral program, it was not to make more money or to work my way into a teaching position. It was because I wanted to be a better therapist. There is no doubt in my mind that my doctoral program helped me to do just that. My understanding of theory, and ability to effectively apply it in session, both improved by leaps and bounds. Even if I had sought out a career specifically in private practice, I would have served my clients far more effectively with my doctorate than I would have with a masters. And that would have been enough for me to call it a good investment.

    Since then, a number of professional doors have opened to me as a result of the doctorate that would not have otherwise, and I’m thrilled that things have turned out the way they have! But even if they had not, I still would have been wise to get my PsyD.

Of course, as I said above, a doctoral degree is not for everyone. If what you want to do with your career is get into the mental health workforce, get licensed as quickly as possible, and focus on delivering effective clinical services, the clinical-skill benefits of the doctorate may or may not ultimately be worth the investment. On the other hand, if you have any interest in teaching or doing research, a doctorate will help you significantly. And if you have any other motivations to seek (or avoid) the doctorate, take them honestly into consideration. Only you can decide what is the best path for you.

Reference:
Riemersma, M. (2010). The typical California MFT: 2010 CAMFT member practice and demographic survey. The Therapist, 22(4), 28-36.

Insights from 5 1/2 years of California MFT license exam data: Part I

by

California’s 80-ish degree-granting MFT programs are hard to compare. While there are minimum curriculum standards every program must meet, each has its own personality, its own goals, and its own structure. For prospective students, it can be difficult to figure out which programs offer them the best chances of success in the field. There’s really only one common yardstick that every student, from every program, ultimately gets measured on: Licensing exams.

California’s Board of Behavioral Sciences routinely publishes licensing exam success rates for each program in the state, in six-month increments. The most recent data can be viewed on their web site for the Standard Written Exam and the Written Clinical Vignette Exam. However, the small sample sizes that result from using six-month intervals make meaningful comparison difficult; smaller programs are particularly prone to large swings in their graduates’ exam pass rates from one six-month period to the next.

I gathered the BBS data going all the way back to 2004 to see whether bigger sample sizes might allow for some more solid conclusions — or at least better-informed guesses — about how MFT programs around the state compare to one another.

Before we dive in, some pretty major caveats need to be put forward. (1) My student assistants and I did the best we could to cross-check and validate the data, but we cannot guarantee that we did a perfect job. You are cordially invited to check our work (details at the end of this post). (2) Lots of factors influence the exam pass rates of a particular school’s graduates, separate from the quality of education. There are the program’s choices about whom to admit; graduates’ experiences in supervision; decisions by students about whether to pursue MFT licensure; and on and on. So if a program’s graduates performed especially well or poorly, that does not necessarily mean that the program itself performs that way. (3) To whatever degree exam passing-or-failing does reflect on a program itself, it reflects on that program’s performance several years prior to the exam. When you’re looking at data going back to 2004, as we are here, we’re considering the impact of an education received as far back as around 2000, possibly even earlier. Programs change. (4) If you’re a prospective MFT student, exam pass rates are certainly not the only things to consider when choosing an MFT program. They can be useful to include in your decision-making, but please do not let them be a powerful factor.

Got all that? Great! With those cautionary notes in mind, let’s dive in. We’ll focus here on the first licensing exam, the Standard Written Exam.

I’ve had student assistants input and cross-check the data, and we’ve done some analysis using Excel and SPSS (now PASW, for statistical-software purists) programs. The data shows some clear trends.

  • There are big differences between programs. Don’t let anyone tell you that graduate programs are basically interchangeable. They may all be subject to the same MFT curriculum requirements, but some appear to be far more effective than others in preparing their students for the licensing exams. (Education is not the only influence on exam preparedness, of course, but this data does suggest that it is a meaningful one.)

    Note: Try as I might, I could not get the tables to display well inline here. So they’ve been shifted over to the MFTEducation.com server, where they display properly. -bc

    Table 1: Best and worst performing programs*, California MFT Standard Written Exam, 1/1/2004-6/30/2009 (Minimum 50 first-time examinees)

  • Accreditation matters. Graduates of COAMFTE-accredited programs were more successful on licensing exams than graduates of non-COAMFTE programs. While my own program at Alliant International University did better than the state average, much of the COAMFTE benefit seems to come from the strength of the University of San Diego. (I have a more detailed exploration of the link between program accreditation and licensing exam success in press at the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.)

    Table 2: COAMFTE-accredited programs*, California MFT Standard Written Exam, 1/1/2004-6/30/2009
    * – Accredited as of 1/1/2004.

  • Size doesn’t matter. Graduates of smaller programs did no better or worse overall than graduates of bigger programs. And the biggest programs were not necessarily the best. Far from it, in fact. Graduates of National University, the state’s largest MFT program by number of examinees, performed well below state averages on the Standard Written Exam:

    Table 3: Most first-time examinees, California MFT Standard Written Exam, 1/1/2004-6/30/2009

These are only the beginning, of course. There is a lot to be gleaned from the available data, for programs and prospective students alike. I’ll be doing some additional posts with more comparisons here in the coming weeks to illustrate some more of the interesting (I hope!) things we found.

One big plus about working with BBS data is that it’s all public information. So I feel an obligation to make sure others can review it, call out any errors you find, and do additional research with it as you see fit. All of the information on which these tables were based is available now at www.MFTeducation.com. There you will find the BBS source documents that we put together, as well as a searchable database so you can compare your program with others around the state. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome; I hope this is a useful resource!

Coming in Part II: Comparing for-profit programs with not-for-profit.

UNLV’s MFT program will survive

by

This post was originally posted on June 5, 2010 under the headline “UNLV MFT program to close.” The original post follows. It is updated below. -bc

The Las Vegas Sun is reporting that the state’s Board of Regents has approved the closing of UNLV’s marriage and family therapy program. The decision was based on state budget cuts, which also have forced the closing of five other UNLV programs. This appears to be the first COAMFTE-accredited program to be shuttered due to state budget cuts.

Update 7-17-2010: As noted in the comments, the program has been saved thanks to some thoughtful maneuvering by its faculty. Though the MFT program will no longer have its own department, the program will continue under a new administrative structure. This is wonderful news to students, faculty, and colleagues alike. The UNLV program is the only COAMFTE-accredited program in the state and is vital to the region.

From DC: Update on MFT inclusion in Medicare and school programs

by

I’m at the AAMFT Leadership Conference in Washington, DC, where Division leaders from across the country have spent the last three days visiting our federal representatives. Priorities this year include Medicare inclusion and adding MFTs as named providers within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (otherwise known as No Child Left Behind). Before I go to the details on the visits, some words of praise: this was the first time that AAMFT’s California Division and CAMFT, an independent organization of California MFTs, have combined efforts on their federal advocacy visits, and it went swimmingly. CAMFT’s lobbyist and leaders were kind, cooperative and helpful throughout, and I hope their experience of AAMFT was similar. Legislators and their staff people seemed impressed with the level of cooperation. As to the key issues, here is where we currently stand:

Medicare. As we were starting our second day of hill visits to California representatives on Thursday, we were greeted with bad news: the inclusion of MFTs as providers under Medicare, which had been part of the House health care reform package but not the Senate package, was pulled out of the reconciliation bill that will be voted on as early as next week. There is a slim chance that MFT inclusion in Medicare could still be accomplished this year through a different piece of legislation, but at this point that appears unlikely. On a more positive note, though, there remains significant bipartisan support in both chambers for adding MFTs in Medicare, as it would improve access to mental health care for seniors and those with disabilities. For a video of Senator John Barrasso (R – Wyoming) discussing the importance of this issue, click here.

School programs. MFTs can provide services to school populations under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), but because we are under the somewhat vague category of “other providers,” most programs do not seek to include MFTs when they apply for federal grant funding under ESEA. Adding MFTs as specifically named providers would improve the availability of behavioral health services for children. It also comes at no cost, which is helpful in seeking bipartisan support. Currently, these changes are in a House bill (HR1710) that has sponsors from both parties. I always enjoy the Leadership Conference for the trips to the Hill as well as the opportunities to connect with divisions from around the country. I’ll have another update from the conference in the next few days.

Blogging the AAMFT Conference

by

I’m headed to Sacramento on Thursday for this year’s AAMFT Annual Conference, where leaders in the field from around the world gather to share clinical and research insights. It’s a great event every year, and with plenary presentations from Bruce Kuehl, Richard Schwartz, Susan Johnson, and Dorothy Becvar, this year promises to be outstanding.

I’ll be posting as frequently as I can while I’m there; you can also tune into my Twitter feed (@benjamincaldwel) for additional — if very brief — commentary.